Giddens, A, 1990, The Consequences of Modernity, United Kingdom, 1st Stanford University Press, pp.178-188.

Giddens analyses the globalising process through a sociological point of view, focusing on the process that social life is arranged over space and time (“space-time distanciation”). Globalisation has quickly expanded the level of synchronous local associations and the communication across distance, implying that the local is formed by other local occasions and by the “global”, and the global is formed by various local people, at a significantly more intensified rate than any time in recent memory beforehand. This makes a feeling of ‘one world’, which has many impacts. The global production process has expanded out to incorporate all parts of the world in a global division of work and community. This has empowered the dispersion of manufacturing and communication technologies around the world. The book also mentions the achieved shifts or flows in the global dissemination of manufacturing and communication (for instance, a portion of the advanced industrialist showcase market economies of the West which are presently de-industrialising). Also, the book presented the large-scale shifts or flows achieved by globalisation influence local level through preparing our method for seeing the globe and changing ‘knowledge’; modernity in its existing state which would not be conceivable without, for instance, the pool of information that we know as ‘the news’ (Giddens 1990).

Delanty, G, 2006, The cosmopolitan imagination, critical cosmopolitanism and social theory, The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 57, no. 1, pp.25-47

Censorious cosmopolitanism is a developing bearing in social theory and reflects both an object of study and a particular methodological way to deal with the social world. It alters from normative political and moral accounts of cosmopolitanism as world polity or universalistic culture in its origination of cosmopolitanism as socially arranged and as a component of the self-building mood of the social world itself. It is an approach that flows or moves the accentuation to interior formative processes inside the social world as opposed to considering globalisation to be the essential mechanism. This flags a post-universalistic sort of cosmopolitanism, which isn’t only a state of decent variety, however is verbalised in social models of world transparency through which social orders experience change. The cosmopolitan imagination energy is verbalised in framing processes and social models by which the social world is constituted; it is in this manner not reducible to solid identities but rather ought to be comprehended as a type of social conflict in which the rationale of interpretation assumes a focal part. The cosmopolitan imagination can emerge in any sort of society and whenever, yet it is fundamental to modernity, this is so distant as it is a state of self-problematisation, inadequacy and the mindfulness that conviction can never be built up for the last time. As a methodologically grounded approach, censorious cosmopolitan humanism has an unmistakable undertaking: to perceive or understand social change by recognising new or rising social realities is globalisation (Delanty 2006).

(Plant Earth: Walking Across Space, GIF, Giphy Images)